Re: [sca-assembly] Summarizing the state of ASSEMBLY-235

Eric,

From the "Implementation Type Documentation
Requirements for SCA Assembly Model

Version 1.1 Specification" , section
2.5:

Describing an Interface
Type associated with an Implementation

Type

An implementation type might have an associated
interface type which it uses when describing the

interfaces of services and references.
If the implementation type is able to use an existing interface type,

e.g., interface.wsdl or interface.java,
then the implementation type documentation can simply reference

the documentation for that interface type.

if the implementation type uses an interface
type that is not described in the documentation for some

existing implementation type, then the
implementation type documentation MUST describe the interface

type. [IMP10017]

For some new interface type, there are
at minimum two pieces of information to provide:

• a
definition of the interface extension element

• a
definition of the mapping of the interface type to interface.wsdl.

All remotable interfaces MUST be mappable
to interface.wsdl. [IMP10030]

...

Some other comments inline...

Yours, Mike

Dr Mike Edwards
 Mail Point 146, Hursley
Park

STSM
 Winchester, Hants SO21
2JN

SCA & Services
Standards
 United Kingdom

Co-Chair OASIS SCA
Assembly TC
 

IBM Software Group
  

Phone:
+44-1962 818014
  

Mobile:
+44-7802-467431 (274097)
  

e-mail:

  

 

 

From:
Eric Johnson <>

To:
Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB

Cc:
OASIS SCA Assembly <>

Date:
23/02/2011 17:30

Subject:
Re: [sca-assembly] Summarizing the state
of ASSEMBLY-235

Hi Mike,

It sounds like what you're describing, though is a normative constraint
on a interface type description that claims to conform to the SCA specification.

<mje>

Correct - for something
claiming CONFORMANCE, I think that is exactly what I'm describing

</mje>

It sounds like we need either a document, or a section analogous to our
"Implementation Type Documentation Requirements for SCA Model Version
1.1 Specification", but for interfaces.

The text you're looking for, I think, is on the order of "A definition
of an interface must either define how it maps to another defined interface
type, and how it maps to WSDL 1.1"

<mje>

I assume you intended "or"
rather than"and" here, given the "either" in the earlier
part of the sentence.

The problem I see with
the earlier part of the either...or is that it is so vague as to be meaningless.

Lets say we already have
defined & specified (standardized) <interface.a/> and <interface.b/>
 Now we want to

introduce <interface.c/>.
 If they all map to/from WSDL 1.1, things are simple, I believe.  If
<interface.c/> does not map

to WSDL 1.1, then we will
need to define the mapping of <interface.c/> to interface.a and the
mapping to <interface.b/>

(in both directions, I
think).  If this is not done, then there is no guarantee that some
wire between 2 components

that use the different
interface types will actually work when run on a given SCA runtime,

Perhaps this is what you
intend - ie some interface types simply won't work together.  To me
that is a strange idea of

a service - one where the
technology used shows through enough to prevent the use of the service
by some clients.

</mje>

-Eric.

Unless stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 

Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU 

Unless stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 

Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU